<p>Fantastic, thanks for the research.</p>
<p>Proponents of historically black or single sex or religious institutions would tell you that they deliver a fine education due to their intentional lack of diversity. Just sayin…</p>
<p>Most HBUs do not consider race or ethnicity in admissions; their lack of diversity is likely due to applicant/matriculant self-selection.</p>
<p>Such self-selection is fairly obvious from reading posts around these forums, where non-black students seem to be unwilling to consider them, even when they otherwise fit the students’ stated criteria (and often offer lots of merit scholarship money).</p>
<p>I am really grateful to the Vassar President for boldly speaking the truth. In reality, many schools who claim to be need blind are need sensitive. It is one of the major reasons why private high schools are targeted and prioritized for recruitment travel: They know they can find a significantly higher percentage of full pay and half pay applicants here. </p>
<p>You will probably never find an admissions director who will state this publicly and I can’t blame them. They would be resoundingly chastened and they may lose their job.</p>
<p>The assumption is that private schools are targeted because this is where selective colleges are likely to find high achieving applicants and that is CERTAINLY TRUE, but don’t think the “ability to pay” is not also a significant factor. When a school like Williams is questioning whether it can be truly need blind, what does that say for schools with significantly less endowment per student figures and less net tuition revenue?</p>
<p>After reading all of the comments in this thread, I think some of you are being too harsh on the private colleges. Consider the following points:</p>
<p>Selective colleges have substantial tuition discounting, so the $60,000 COA you often see is nowhere close to the net tuition revenue. Why is this true? One of the main reasons is because of the amount of aid that is being dispersed to make the college affordable. Charge those who can pay to have the resources to bring in a talented class, irrespective of the ability to pay.</p>
<p>A lot of colleges are truly passionate about providing access for low income kids, but the demand overwhelmingly exceeds the supply no matter how diligent they are at prioritizing access in their fund raising initiatives. </p>
<p>Finally, just like the public believes that a school with higher test scores is a better school, the public also believes (in general) that if you accepted me, you have an obligation to give me an affordable offer.</p>
<p>I agree with the poster who said that having poor kids go to elite private colleges helps diminish stereotyping. I do agree with those who said that public colleges are desperately in need of cash as their state appropriations dry up, but I personally am not offended by Vassar calling for more government money to make them accessible to low in come kids.</p>
<p>but I personally am not offended by Vassar calling for more government money to make them accessible to low in come kids.</p>
<p>Oh please. It is offensive. Tax payers have no obligation to help pricey privates be more affordable. Tax payers have no obligation to help pricey cars be more affordable. What next, should we offer grants so the low income can have easier access to luxury apts? </p>
<p>Taxpayers do not have an interest in making sure X Private University even continues to exist. If Vassar were to close, it’s “oh well” as far as taxpayers are concerned.</p>
<p>the goal of taxpayers should be to help make instate publics more affordable for its residents. And, it goes without saying that gov’ts have an obligation to make sure that its public univs and colleges are adequate.</p>
<p>BTW…we all know that the “per student” cost is greater than what’s being charged. That’s not new info.</p>
<p>The issue of minority and low income access to college and particularly, “elite” colleges, goes way beyond enabling lower income kids to rise above poverty. It’s also about seeing more women and minorities in political office, on Wall Street, up there with the movers and shakers. Yes, I know a graduate of a local community college can also achieve these heights, but selective colleges are a sort of fast track.</p>
<p>One of the benefits of attending an “elite” college is making connections, laying the groundwork for future networking, and having access to such things as choice internships. For a child from a low income family it can also be a training course in lifestyles of the rich and famous—how to be comfortable at a fancy dinner, how to greet a senator when you are personally introduced, etc. Kids from rich established families may be quite used to such things as having a prime minister as a dinner guest while a kid from the ghetto may be sweating profusely trying to figure out which fork to use. These are necessary skills and experiences for future presidents, Supreme Court justices, etc.</p>
<p>In the “old days,” Harvard, Yale, etc. were an exclusive good old boys club (white, WASP, male) and their graduates were running the nation, the megacorporations, and whatever positions of power come to mind. Part of the rush to diversity among elite schools is to break this tradition and help create a future that is more open to diversity AFTER college.</p>
<p>Apparently the state of Delaware considers this a valuable goal. I don’t know that they are offering additional financial assistance, but they are offering packets of advice to their qualifying students. I don’t think we as a nation should offer more financial assistance to students attending private schools, but certainly there are organizations that might take this up as a project. I believe many of the top schools can reallocate their own money.</p>
<p>I think some of the “push” is to make sure the colleges have the cream of the crop to select from and it may just lead to increased competition among minority and low income applicants, although it sounds like some schools would like to enroll more such students but aren’t getting the applicants (from the Delaware link in the nytimes article: “An array of college administrators have said they are eager to recruit more low-income students, even though they have largely failed to do so in recent years”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well duh…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure they are…so invest in dozens of more development officers to increase donations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“the public” believes in no such thing. </p>
<p>Do you have survey sources to verify your claim? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the federal/state governments should raise taxes so that the wealthy kids can rub elbows with poor kids? Is that even a real argument for public policy? Seriously?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do top schools still provide courses as finishing schools? :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“ElectoralVote”>ElectoralVote]ElectoralVote[/url</a>] indicates the highest positions in the US government are no longer occupied by WASPs.</p>
<p>Schools attended by the people in these positions:</p>
<p>President: Occidental, Columbia, Harvard
Vice President: Delaware, Syracuse
Senate Majority Leader: Southern Utah, Utah State, George Washington
Speaker of the House: Xavier (OH)
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: Harvard, Harvard</p>
<p>Note that the Supreme Court justices’ law schools are 5 Harvard, 3 Yale, and 1 Columbia. So the “Harvard, Yale, etc.” seem to be maintaining their grip in the judicial branch, which is perhaps not surprising given that law is a school-prestige-oriented profession.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you poll people in April, you will probably find a very different result for those who are high school seniors or their parents versus everyone else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even most the non-financial aid students at HYetc probably do not get prime ministers as dinner guests. Also, do HYetc dining halls come with elaborately set place settings at fancy dinners, or do students eating there just grab forks from the fork tray as they go to the dining hall to eat?</p>
<p>. For a child from a low income family it can also be a training course in lifestyles of the rich and famous—how to be comfortable at a fancy dinner, how to greet a senator when you are personally introduced, etc. Kids from rich established families may be quite used to such things as having a prime minister as a dinner guest while a kid from the ghetto may be sweating profusely trying to figure out which fork to use. These are necessary skills and experiences for future presidents, Supreme Court justices, etc.</p>
<p>I doubt HYPS-like schools are offering Cotillion 101</p>
<p>“the goal of taxpayers should be to help make instate publics more affordable for its residents. And, it goes without saying that gov’ts have an obligation to make sure that its public univs and colleges are adequate.”</p>
<p>Ding ding ding ding!!!</p>
<p>I’d have about 5,000 higher priorities for taxpayer money than making sure a handful of poor kids can go to elite private schools like Vassar or Harvard. I think that is something that Vassar and Harvard can and largely do pay for.</p>
<p>A real (not faux) priority would be making sure all kids have a good high school to go to and then making sure there is a good technical school, community college or state university that is available and affordable for all poor kids (not just the 0.05% of poor kids who might be in the running to attend an elite private college). </p>
<p>From a societal perspective, we already throw WAY too much money at bloated 4 year residential college education. Which is a prime reason why the price of that diluted credential has exploded.</p>
<p>I also think that many of those colleges are handling being “need-aware” pretty well. I can’t find a link, but apparently Reed had an explanation of how they make their “need-aware” decisions. Admissions ranks all the kids 1-5 with 5 being the strongest. They start with the 1s and look at their financial aid requirements, and only around 10% of admits are taken with this methodology. So the strong poor students still get full need – only if you are a marginal admit does it help you to be a full-pay student. This seems very reasonable to me, and my kid is not a full-pay student. If you were poor and a marginal admit to Reed, find a different school …</p>
<p>Re: #75</p>
<p>I.e. “need aware” admissions is like a competition for an implicit merit scholarship (the financial aid that meets need), but the school rejects instead of admitting without the “scholarship”.</p>
<p>For those of you who feel private colleges should not get any more Federal money, do you feel Pelll, SEOG, Perkins and unsubsidized loans should not be extended to students who attend private schools?</p>
<p>Well, if after doing the math, it meant that more poor students attending state schools would have much smaller gaps, then, well…yes.</p>
<p>I don’t need a survey to know that students are often stunned when a college gives them nothing or significantly gaps them. As I said, I’d love a dollar for every time I’ve heard a student express their indignation only to retort something like the following: “what were they thinking, do they think I am rich or something”</p>
<p>Without some Federal money, the most elite schools will be even more skewed toward being bastions for the privileged than they already are. Colleges will back off assisting high need kids without some federal help. I just don’t see our most elite institutions only serving affluent Caucasians who come privileged backgrounds as something that benefits society, let alone the institutions.</p>
<p>Oh, the poor elite private colleges with billion dollar endowments! They need government handouts so they can have more token poor students to assuage their guilt!</p>
<p>I will turn that around and say that instead of more government subsidies for private colleges, let’s tax their endowments to fund more poor students at public schools.</p>